Chapman v. Rudd Paint and Varnish , 409 F.2d 635 (1969)

The Ninth Circuit held that the promotional brochure was not part of the agreement, and contained fundamental elements that did not create a security as defined by federal law. The distributor agreement specified that the...more

Bond v. Koscot , 276 So.2d 198 (1973)

The Court of Appeals ruled that the District Court erred when it did not consider the distributor agreement between Koscot and Bond to be a security. Bond signed a distributor agreement, authorizing her to purchase cosmetics...more

SEC v. International Heritage, Inc., 4 F.Supp.2d 1378 (1998)

The Securities & Exchange Commission brought suit against International Heritage, Inc. (IHI) for various securities violations and obtained an injunction, partly relating to the compensation plan. IHI tendered a modified...more

Harrison v. Dean Whitter Reynolds, Inc., 79 F.3d 609 (1996)

Kenning and Carpenter worked for Dean Witter Reynolds. They told over 100 clients (including Plaintiff Henderson) that, as Dean Witter employees, they had access to discounted municipal bonds and would buy them on behalf of...more

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Omnitrition and dismissed the claim. The court found that Omnitrition had adopted programs that previous court decisions had found to be conclusive evidence that an...more

Reed v. Palmer

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that because the federal court had pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims arising out of the same transaction as the federal claims, the plaintiff is barred res judicata from bringing...more

Matek v. Murat, 862 F.2d 720 (1988)

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the focus of the analysis should be on the expectations the parties had in the original transaction. To determine the expectations, the court looked at the terms of the contract,...more

Wright v. Schock, 571 F.Supp. 642 (1983)

Golden State Home Loans (GSHL) was a broker and servicer of loans secured by deeds of trust on real property. The Wrights invested in GSHL's loans. GSHL had a policy of advancing payments to its investors if the mortgagee...more

Wright v. Schock, 571 F.Supp. 642 (1983)

Golden State Home Loans (GSHL) was a broker and servicer of loans secured by deeds of trust on real property. The Wrights invested in GSHL's loans. GSHL had a policy of advancing payments to its investors if the mortgagee...more

Mitzner v. Cardet International , 358 F.Supp. 1262 (1973)

he District Court held that the scheme was a security within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933. The court found persuasive an SEC ruling declaring pyramid programs to be investment contracts, and hence securities....more

Villeneuve v. Advanced Business Concepts, 698 F.2d (1983)

A panel of the Appeals Court upheld the standard from the US Supreme Court in W.J. Howey that a security's profits should come "solely" from the efforts of others. Villeneuve bought a distributorship and was given the...more

Martin v. T.V. Tempo

The Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling that the agreement in question was not an "investment contract". Plaintiffs paid T.V. Tempo for the right to publish a television programming guide in an exclusive...more

Piambino v. Bailey, 610F.2d 1306 (1980)

The Court of Appeals held that given the facts in the record of the District Court, the granting of summary judgment on the claim of a securities law violation was improvident because a judge or jury could reasonably view the...more

Colorado v. Blair , 579 P.2d 1133 (1978)

Blair was convicted of willfully selling unregistered securities in violation of Colorado law. He was director of several charitable organizations that operated as a single unit and paid out investment gains with funds...more

Crowley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. , 570 F.2d 877. (1978)

Crowley sued Montgomery Ward claiming that their catalog sales agency agreement was a security sold in violation of US securities laws. The agreement allowed the agent the right to use Montgomery Ward intellectual property,...more

The District Court adopted the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Glen Turner and ruled that the distributorships of Bestline were securities because the profits that were derived from them were to come substantially from the...more

Plum Tree v. Seligson , 383 F.Supp. 307 (1974)

The District Court held that, according to the US Supreme Court in Howey, an investment contract is an investment of money in an enterprise with an expectation of profit solely from the efforts of others. The agreement with...more

Davis v. Avco Financial Services, 739 F2d 1057 (1984)

he Court of Appeals held that a person is liable as a "seller" of a security if they were the proximate cause the securities sale. An Avco loan officer became involved with Dare to be Great, a program that was found to be a...more

Davis v. Avco Corp. , 371 F.Supp 782 (1974)

The District court denied Avco's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim because the complaint properly alleged all the necessary elements of a claim of securities fraud and...more

Lino v. City Investing

The Court held that neither the underlying agreement, nor the promissory note were securities as defined by federal law. Lino claimed that the agreement should be treated as an investment contract under the Howey line of...more

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.